Whitney and The Metropolitan Museum of Art

I know art is something quite subjective (trust me, I've learned this so many times with this class) but it is of no use, despite disagreement I will present my opinion on my blog.

I really did not enjoy myself at the Whitney exhibit, 'OS' by Wade Guyton. Actually, scratch that, I really enjoyed myself by experiencing adrenaline filled shock, a bit of wrenching anguish for the 'world of art' I will one day sell my soul to, and a sick, disgustingly pleasing sense of humor. I don't know if it's productive or counter productive to write about how much I hated all of this, but I guess for this blog's sake, I'll present my Bitter Betty (Pun.Intended) experience.

I understand the concept of monoprints, (A form of printmaking that cannot be identically reproduced various times, yet is of similar nature between one copy and another.) but I do not understand the 'hype' of a computer format creating said monoprints. I will not be impressed or encouraged by the art world by looking at prints from an intentionally faulty printer. Yes, I understand Guyton wanted to convey the message of using technology to serve purposes it was not intended for but.... No. Just no.

If 'No' was an emotion, I'm sure that's what I was feeling at that moment. The piece that probably did it for me was 'Inverted Woodpile' (2002). The artist found scrap wood on a street in Brooklyn (because, where else would this artist 'hang out'?)and flipped it over.... then placed it on an exhibit. I now realize I was being too hard on Paul Ramírez Jonas' employment of having others do part of his installment materials himself. That was stupid of me. I now understand 'readymades' and their installment process in galleries... Except at LEAST Duchamp wrote 'R. Mutt'. on his work 'Fountain' in 1917.

I think my opinion on the exhibit at the Whitney is pretty clear here. I do agree my classmates exposed various good arguments that made me reconsider Guyton as not being such a joke; they helped me see depth in his work.... I'm still going to base myself on my initial reaction because it was my personal experience at the moment. I'm usually not the type to exhibit extreme opinions, but this brought it upon me, I hope I don't get penalized for this.

The best part of this exhibit was probably hearing some old ladies scoffing and pointing out some of our classmates as 'art types' "Oh look at all these artsy types..."

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Warhol at the Met.

So, when it was mentioned to our class we would see an exhibit on Warhol, his influences, contemporaries and those he influenced, I had low expectations. I, personally, am not a fan of Warhol's blotchy, uncrafted works but I do recognize the importance and impact he had in terms of pop art, especially with the advancement of printmaking in the mid-20th Century. So, props to him, I guess.

As we made our way into the exhibit it was filled with people, exactly what was to be expected of an artist that is sohyped up in modern day culture. It was so crowded you could barely spend much time contemplating the work in the cramped entrance at the beginning. Later on, the rooms expanded better and provided much more visibility in general.

Being a 'historiphile' by nature, I was drawn to the analysis of dates and the historic relevance at the time. Andy Warhol began publicity in the 1950's during Post-War America. In this period, the concept of the 'American Dream' (household, 2-3 kids, a car, wife, dog, consumerism and white picket fence) was in full development. The US had 'won' the War and was now economically above the other most powerful nations, devestated European countries, that were trying to rebuild their economy once more. American people had more wealth than more regions in Europe and Asia and meant to spend their money. Hard. With extreme advertisements and consumerism. The American Dream. Warhol's environment and time-period suited him greatly to portray a culture of capitalism, consumerism and the glamourization of such aspects.

The exhibit was divided within themes that were tackled by Andy Warhol (consumerism, glamour, margined minorities (homosexuality and racism), coorporate life, etc.). In each section, works of Andy Warhol, his contemporaries, his predecessors, and on the artists he influenced. I thought that was a very well done curration tactic and, despite the over-whelming amount of works presented, it helped the show run smoothly.

I took many notes on this exhibit (Yup, I'm that scholar Virgo taking notes on everything and making lists.) but the ones that captivated me the most were on Nan Goldin's work, 'Ivy with Marilyn, Boston' (1973), in the Gender Identity section. This photograph presents a made up, elegand drag queen next to a print of Andy Warhol's Marilyn. It is visually striking to have such a similarity yet wide contrast in femininity within the photograph yet, one quote that was provided with the exhibit was what captured me and pretty much summed up various elements of Warhol's work.

"Drag Queens are living testimony to the way women used to want to be, the way some people still want them to be, and the way some women still actually want to be. Drag queens are ambulatory archives of ideal moviestar womanhood." -Nan Goldin

In this quote, Goldin certainly exposes his influence from Warhol's thematic variation and also ties together concepts presented in this exhibit. He relates this superficial aesthetic perfection owned by hollywood starlets (idealization of glamour and beauty) to the transformation drag queens undergo. Drag, as mentioned by Goldin, is the proyection of a once and still idealized and strived concept of womanhood. These men that transform themselves seek to the superficial and glamourized image that portray women like Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, etc., and thus going back to the same concept of glamour that Warhol implied with his collection of celebrity portraits.

Also, on a loose end, these famous figures have an influence over consumerism. Because of the desired glamour they exhibit to the public, the public is compelled to buy their make-up, their clothes, etc. to then 'look' like these famous people and thus feel as alluring and dazzling as these 'stars' are.

Before I wrap this up, I want to mention something very morbid I found in one piece by Warhol. In 'Nine Jackies' (1964), Warhol reproduces images of Jackie Kennedy's moments right before the assasination of her husband, the late president, John F. Kennedy. These images were sold to papers and made so much profit out of such a heartwrenching moment, thus presenting the cruelty behind capitalism and how it benefits from other's suffering... as long as it has a large price-tag. I find this incredibly shocking and frightening, especially coming from a family of a widowed mother. I could never imagine anyone making profit out of a moment of suffering experienced by my mother, brother or myself.

It's great to have low expectations for many things in life. This exhibit proved to be much better than I expected and thus, provided a much more enjoyable experience that what I had intentioned to have that day. Definatelly made my day much better after visiting the Whitney for Wade Guyton's exhibit.

-Bettina